↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Alternative Strategies for Cost-Effective Water Quality Management in Lakes

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, September 2006
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
A Comparison of Alternative Strategies for Cost-Effective Water Quality Management in Lakes
Published in
Environmental Management, September 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00267-005-0011-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Boyd Kramer, Stephen Polasky, Anthony Starfield, Brian Palik, Lynne Westphal, Stephanie Snyder, Pamela Jakes, Rachel Hudson, Eric Gustafson

Abstract

Roughly 45% of the assessed lakes in the United States are impaired for one or more reasons. Eutrophication due to excess phosphorus loading is common in many impaired lakes. Various strategies are available to lake residents for addressing declining lake water quality, including septic system upgrades and establishing riparian buffers. This study examines 25 lakes to determine whether septic upgrades or riparian buffers are a more cost-effective strategy to meet a phosphorus reduction target. We find that riparian buffers are the more cost-effective strategy in every case but one. Large transaction costs associated with the negotiation and monitoring of riparian buffers, however, may be prohibiting lake residents from implementing the most cost-effective strategy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Professor 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 21 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 20%